Your Right to Not Mask

Your right to mask or not mask extends to the point that it interferes with another’s right. In this case other people’s right to not get Covid-19.

Society has always guaranteed the rights of both parties.

It is the law that you must wear a seat belt both to protect you, your passengers and other drivers on the road.

You must get a license to drive to protect others on the road from inexperienced or bad drivers.

It is against the law to smoke in restaurants and public buildings because cigarette smoke harms both the smoker and the non-smoker.

Stop signs, speed limits and traffic lights are to protect the rights of you and others on the highway from injury from an accident.

Society has laws to protect society from people who are concerned only with their personal wants.

If people were considerate of the rights of others, laws would not be necessary to govern others behavior.

Even the pilgrims recognized that some people are so centered on themselve that there must be laws to protect and guarantee the safety of society. Hence they had to sign the Mayflower Compact before they exited the boat.

Your right to not mask extends to the point where it exposes others to Covid-19. If you don’t go out into society you most certainly have the right and freedom to not wear a mask.

I would ask that if you do not wear a mask, you refrain from seeking medical attention. You see, I shouldn’t need to pay for an illness that you brought upon yourself. You have the right to drive into a brick wall, but I should not have to pay for your decision. If you destroy your liver from drinking, I should not have to pay for your treatment. If you choose to overeat, I should not have to pay for your medical bills. Your bad decisions ultimately end up costing the rest of us increases in insurance and hospital costs.

THINK OF OTHERS, NOT JUST YOURSELF, AND THE LIFE YOU SAVE JUST MIGHT BE YOUR OWN.

Riddle Me This, SCOTUS

The usual explanation of the extent of a person’s individual rights is that your rights extend to the point where they interfere with another’s rights.

So, if in Richnond, California, the Chevron corporation buys up all the billboards and air time on radio, television and other media to support candidates who will be friendly to them; are they not infringing on the free speech rights of the other candidates who will be unable to advertise no matter how much money they have?

Just asking.

Orwellian Newspeak is back in 2014, or why I am not a “New Republican”

Orwellian “Newspeak” is the transformation of English so that words mean the opposite of what they actually mean.  Orwell’s 1984 takes place in what was then the future i.e. 1984. Well, here we are thirty years later and the Republican Party just launched http://www.newrepublican.org/what-we-believe/.  Here they have perfected the art of Orwellian Newspeak.  In evaluating their stated beliefs, we must ask ourselves how this belief implemented would look.  All we have to use for guidance is their contemporanious actions. Today I want to analyze first of their so called beliefs.

1. Freedom for them means freedom of only a certain group.  That group is made up of wealthy businessmen and corporations.  They have the freedom to buy politiciians with unlimited donations.  They have the freedom to disenfranchise voters.  They have the freedom to deny women equal pay for equal wages.  They have the freedom to force their religious views upon others.  They have the freedom to decide who can marry whom.  They have the freedom to deny workers the unemployment insurance they have earned.  They have the freedom to take money from hungry children.  They have the freedom to attempt 50+ times to deny people with existing conditions health insurance.  They have the freedom to block work programs on infrastructure.  They have the freedom to dismiss science.

What they fail to realize is that one’s freedom extends to the point where in infringes upon another’s freedom.

Furthermore, they fail to accept the most basic concept of democracy that in our system majority rules.  The majority must protect the rights of the minority.  The minority has a duty to follow the laws of the majority until the minority becomes the majority and can change them.  What we have had recently is tyranny of the minority through denial of the rights of the majority and obstructionism.

If this is what they mean by “freedom”, i want no part of it; for it reeks of anarchy and strangely enough from them social Darwinism.